Hi Guys,
Perhaps in certain cases the physical functionality of the road may need to
have higher priority than its network classification (as in Nics' example). I
think we all know of roads that are unclassified or secondary etc. that seem to
be "major" routes! This is possibly driven by the changing demography in S.A.
But, again, this is interpretation... And this is why we are always going to
get people changing tags.
I, for one, am quite happy to tag the M39 as a primary road - it is a main
feeder from Kempton/Tembisa to the N1 after all - and tag the M16 as a
secondary road or even tertiary collector (using Pauls' interpretation).
Unless something can be clearly defined, there will be issues.
Paul has put forward a suggestion for classification which does make sense. I
think we need more input from the regular "mappers" and users of maps.
Are we stirring up a hornet's nest?
----- Original Message -----
From: Nic Roets
To: talk-za@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Tagging
Hi Mark and Paul,
I guess our standards are a bit open to interpretation, which is not
necessarily a bad thing. It's relatively easy to get it right. It does not work
for Rossouw Street M13 which carries a lot less traffic than Louis Botha M33.
(And some idiot changed Hans Strydom in Pretoria to residential a few weeks
back !)
Paul, your system also looks easy except distinguishing between secondary and
tertiary.
I may be responsible for tagging the R104 as tertiary so that it stands out a
bit better between the the M2, M4 etc. But if someone wants to change it (or
and other road), I'll stick to the new values.
The only thing that is important to me is that most routing software
currently assumes that 'trunk' roads are faster than primary etc. And it's
unclear if pedestrians and bicycles are allowed on trunk roads, so explicit
tagging is best.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Paul van Helden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
I'm have a similar question to Mark's. The words "trunk", "primary",
"secondary" and "tertiary" implies a functional classification. A
functionally classified road network should have each class
(more-or-less) forming a closed network. The "motorway" class is not a
functional classification, but a physical classification. For me, using
the "motorway" class is acceptable because that is the way street maps
are typically made: showing dual carriageways as the top class
regardless of route designation or function. Anyway, only rarely in the
case of underutilized dual carriageway roads is that an incorrect
assumption.
Defining "trunk" as N roads is making it a network classification. Since
trunk roads are rendered in green and we want to see the national
network on the map, regardless of function, it works.
We have (at least) 3 different ways of classifying roads and these need
to be blended into one classification. Our problem is also that we have
to use the existing classes and get the OSM map to look like the street
maps we are used to in SA. (In terms of colouring & the scales at which
they display).
The "tertiary" class is not mentioned on the tagging standards page. Yet
there are a lot of them, many which (like trunk) "looks" right.
My suggestion is to define the tag names as follows:
Any freeway = "motorway" (physical classification)
N roads (undivided) = "trunk" (network classification)
Major routes linking into freeways and N routes, typically low numbered
M & R = "primary" (main roads: combination between functional and
network classification)
Important routes linking into "primary" (main) roads (this sometimes
will be a road without a R designation) or routes linking up populated
places = "secondary" (network classification)
Local collector roads, ie. residential roads that carry through traffic
(often residential roads with sidewalks) = "tertiary" (functional
classification)
The rest = either "residential" or "unclassified".
In terms of the correct naming of the above (for legends on customized
maps) I would go for:
Freeways
National roads
Main roads
Secondary roads
Collector roads
Residential / other
My suggestion for "tertiary" will invalidate many of the current
"tertiary" roads - those that are not residential and are connecting
populated places. A good example is the R104: Pretoria street connecting
Bronkhorstspruit parallel with the N4.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-25.7542&lon=28.4227&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF
Comments?
Regards,
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Talk-ZA mailing list
Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
!DSPAM:40899,49105492100021795029775!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Talk-ZA mailing list
Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
!DSPAM:40899,49105492100021795029775!
_______________________________________________
Talk-ZA mailing list
Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
